ILNews

Tug-of-war

Michael W. Hoskins
October 28, 2009
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Juvenile Justice

Bonaventura/PayneLake Superior Judge Mary Beth Bonaventura recently found herself doing what no other Indiana juvenile judge had done previously. She phoned the state’s Department of Child Services and asked Director James Payne, himself a former juvenile court judge, for permission to place a child outside Indiana. He reviewed the case and granted her request.

But that instance isn’t what bothers Judge Bonaventura or her colleagues throughout the state; it’s that they’re forced to seek permission at all.

An unexpected, last-minute change in a bill during the 2009 special session stripped away much of the juvenile judges’ decision-making discretion for placements outside Indiana, and now all three government branches are reacting to how and why that happened and whether it strengthens or hinders Indiana’s juvenile justice system.

“This used to be a judicial decision, but now it’s an executive department decision,” said Indiana Court of Appeals Chief Judge John Baker, who recently sat as a member of the legislative Commission on Courts as it examined this issue. “I wasn’t aware it was broken, or at least that there was a discussion outside the judiciary that it was broken.”

Special session surprise

With PL 182-2009(ss), Section 387, lawmakers amended Indiana Code §31-37-19-3(f) to require DCS recommendation or approval for any out-ofstate placement, or else the county must pay for placement. The change came after the Indiana Supreme Court in April ruled against the state agency and gave more deference to juvenile judges in making placement decisions when there’s a dispute about who should pay. Taking its case directly to the General Assembly, the DCS asked the lawmakers to tweak state statute and give it more control.
 

It's not the rightThe change happened without public discussion and surprised the judges, who were still reeling from sweeping statutory changes made a year earlier giving the DCS more authority over juvenile justice decisions and shifting some funding to the state.

The gamut of issues came up during the two Commission on Courts meetings in October, where all sides came together to discuss the issues and some even pointed out potential constitutional issues that could arise.

“It’s arrogant for judges to say or think that only judges can make those decisions and not the executive branch, but our state’s policy has been to leave it up to the judges and not have them second-guessed by the executive branch,” Chief Judge Baker said, making an observation in his role filling in for Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

Speaking about her experience in Lake County, Judge Bonaventura said all placements are about what’s best for children and families, and the judges work to keep juveniles inside the state as much as possible, as long as needs are met. But she doesn’t like the idea of singling out and treating juveniles differently based on placement. Doing so, she said, raises potential constitutional concerns â?? a separation of powers violation and questions about how the unrelated juvenile justice provision was lumped into a massive budget bill.

John PayneTippecanoe Juvenile Judge Loretta Rush, who chairs the Indiana Supreme Court’s Juvenile Justice Improvement Committee, told the interim legislative panel that all of the recent statutory changes negatively impact their ability to do their job effectively.

“These decisions (that judges make) weigh heavily on us, and it sets our juvenile justice system backward to take away this judicial discretion and place it with a state executive agency,” she said.

Opposing sides

Several commission members voiced their frustration about the last-minute change and said they didn’t know about the provision until it became law. After hearing from a handful of unhappy juvenile judges, the committee voted overwhelming to recommend that the General Assembly repeal that provision during the upcoming session.

Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, called the revision a “fiscally-based decision that wasn’t thought through.” Other lawmakers agreed and voiced similar concerns, saying they trusted the decisions Indiana juvenile judges have made and that there hasn’t been any rash of out-of-state placements about which the state should be concerned.

Chief Judge John Baker“I was totally unaware this was in the budget, and there ought to be a do-over,” said Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson. “This goes very much to the independence of our judiciary and who’s in the best position to decide what’s in the best interests of a child. I hope there would be extensive debate on this.”

The DCS director defended the law change that he’d specifically asked for during the special session, and Payne said the rationale is focused more on best practices than money.

“I’m not here to talk about money, but money is a part of this,” he told committee members. “We have the treatment programs here to adequately serve their needs, and keeping children close to home is a best practice and something this state can and should support.”

The agency’s main priority is to keep children close to home and “engage families” as much as possible, Payne said. Outof-state placement is used as a last resort, and research shows Indiana has the capacity to keep virtually every child here.

Nationally, many states are turning away from out-of-state placements, and more than half have limited them in order to keep juveniles close to home, Payne said. He presented lawmakers with a 2008 report from the non-profit group known as IARCCA, which describes itself as an Association of Children & Family Services, saying Hoosier judges have many in-state placement options and there’s a 30 percent bed capacity that remains open. He said Indiana could use existing resources to keep virtually every child within the state and serve them adequately.

But judges disputed the report, some saying that it doesn’t take into consideration that those facilities often decline to take a particular juvenile when they are asked to do so by a judge.

The decissionsDespite Payne’s insistence that judges can still make out-of-state placements without DCS approval, juvenile judges say their hands are tied because it’s a “pay to place” setup: If they don’t consult the DCS first, then the cash-strapped counties would have to find money to pay for the placement. That is difficult in tough economic times, but especially since another provision of the 2008 law change took away and transferred to the state the local county fund previously used to pay for those placements and services.

Judge Rush said she recently asked her county council to set aside money and devote a specific line item in the budget to use when the juvenile court disagrees with the DCS, but the county refused to do that.

St. Joseph Juvenile Judge Peter Nemeth criticized how the DCS operates and continues getting more authority to call the shots on juvenile offenders, delinquents, and Children In Need of Services. The agency, he said, often seems as though it’s metaphorically throwing darts at a dartboard without knowing any particulars about a child or family, and disregards recommendations by the key players and even its own local caseworkers.

“It’s not the right thing to do, and it certainly interferes with judges doing their job,” he said. “They want to look at a piece of paper to make decisions. ... Is that the way we want our justice system to operate for our kids and their families?”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT